START treaty ratified. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 12:12:31 PM)

The Senate finally, after some threats by some Republicans to block the ratification, ratified the START Treaty.


quote:

Thirteen Republicans broke with their top two leaders and joined 56 Democrats and two independent in providing the necessary two-thirds vote to approve the treaty. The vote was 71-26. source



hertz -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 1:18:37 PM)

I was listening to some chat about this on the radio today. Being English, I sometimes find US politics less than transparent. So can somebody please explain this to me: Why do some Republicans apparently believe that 1500 nuclear warheads are insufficient? Or to put it another way, Why on earth would anyone vote against START?



cuckoldmepls -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 1:26:02 PM)

You numbnutts, don't you realize democrats only tell you the good part about a bill or treaty. They never reveal the bad parts. Like for example, I've read that it actually prevents us from building our missile defense shield, and the way North Korea, and Iran are hell bent on becoming a intercontinental ballistic missle threat, this could out to be disastrous.



mnottertail -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 1:31:26 PM)

Well, to have a shortfinger calling anyone numbnuts (even without spelling it right) is laughable:
1. Each Party shall reduce and limit its ICBMs and ICBM
launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM
warheads, SLBM warheads, and heavy bomber nuclear armaments,
so that seven years after entry into force of this Treaty and
thereafter, the aggregate numbers, as counted in accordance
with Article I11 of this Treaty, do not exceed:
(a) 700, for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed
heavy bombers;
(b) 1550, for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on
deployed SLBMs, and nuclear warheads counted for deployed
heavy bombers;
(c) 800, for deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers,
deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and
non-deployed heavy bombers.
2. Each Party shall have the right to determine for itself
the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms.

You don't think this is enough to blow them fuckers up?
 
North Korea and Iran are problems for China and Russia long before us.
 
You should probably not try to interpret shit since you are inept at thought processes via overwhelming prima facie evidence.



DomKen -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 1:42:09 PM)

Just to be clear there is no working ballistic missile defence and no such technology is in development. DARPA and its contractors have blown billions of tax dollars and they are still decades away.

Even if some breakthrough happens and we had a working way to shoot down inbound ballistic warheads it would be simple matter to add more decoys to the MIRV warheads and overwhelm the interception capacity of any such system.

Missile defence is a terrible idea. Beyond the above issues it produces the illusion of a winnable nuclear conflict which renders MAD moot despite the fact that any significantnuclear exchange will be lethal levels of fallout into the jetstreams poisoning the entire planet.



Politesub53 -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 5:22:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

You numbnutts, don't you realize democrats only tell you the good part about a bill or treaty. They never reveal the bad parts. Like for example, I've read that it actually prevents us from building our missile defense shield, and the way North Korea, and Iran are hell bent on becoming a intercontinental ballistic missle threat, this could out to be disastrous.


You really shouldnt call people numbnutts, given your posting history.

From the Prague meeting between the two Presidents.

Medvedev
<We offered to the United States that we help them establish a global anti-missile defense system, and we should think about this, given the vulnerability of our world, the terrorist challenges and the possibility of using nuclear arms by terrorists existing in this world. > 



DarkSteven -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 6:24:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

You numbnutts, don't you realize democrats only tell you the good part about a bill or treaty. They never reveal the bad parts. Like for example, I've read that it actually prevents us from building our missile defense shield, and the way North Korea, and Iran are hell bent on becoming a intercontinental ballistic missle threat, this could out to be disastrous.


Um, I'm way more concerned about terrorists poisoning us or taking out our computer system than I am of a directed nuclear strike.  I'm also more concerned about an errant missile than a directed strike.

START reduces the threat of an errant missile, and ensures that we will not continue to throw money at missile attacks, which IMO are an outdated threat for the most part (it still exists as a threat but is not as high priority as it was in the 60s and 70s).

Just because they're Democrats does not mean that they're not right occasionally.



servantforuse -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 7:47:58 PM)

The United States has enough nukes now to blow up the entire world. In this treaty we will have 85 billion to ensure that they are all working up to standards. This treaty, like most treatys is meaningless.



LynnTav -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/22/2010 8:43:23 PM)

I am going to be an American Ass, and I apologize for it. Why are Americans Building a defensive shield in Europe. Oh wait, to protect Europe. Maybe you should rethink why some Republicans are against the Start Program.



Politesub53 -> RE: START treaty ratified. (12/23/2010 3:17:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LynnTav

I am going to be an American Ass, and I apologize for it. Why are Americans Building a defensive shield in Europe. Oh wait, to protect Europe. Maybe you should rethink why some Republicans are against the Start Program.


Maybe you should rethink Americas reasons for the missile defence shield. Only a small percentage are to be based in Europe. The European plans America did have have been altered, to counter the threat from Iran, which at present, doesnt exist.






Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.198242E-02